For a start, the United States is a much bigger country than Britain, and doesn't have the same music media culture (or even arguably the defining rock and roll pedigree - The Beatles, Rolling Stones, bla bla bla). She starts by citing the experimental pedigree of MGMT and Vampire Weekend (give me strength). She mentions that Fleet Foxes could probably cover a Bowie song that Mumford and Sons couldn't (what?). She complains about mainstream acts at mainstream festivals as though U2 and Coldplay don't do the same thing in America. She mentions a couple of decent US acts. Meh. She doesn't mention Actress or Demdike Stare or Wild Beasts or Broadcast or PJ Harvey or [insert names ad infinitum].

We're just getting a very odd look into what passes for American culture, focusing only on the tiny indie bands.

As bad as The Kooks, Brother, generic indie band of the month are, they're nothing compared to shite like Limp Bizkit, Creed, Knickleback, etc. Shit floats to the top on either side of the Atlantic in music.

There are not, alas, the British equivalent of Animal Collective, Gang Gang Dance and Battles ie exprimental bands in the indie mainstream. Why, I don't know. There used to be, I'm thinking late 80s/early 90s (MBV, AR Kane, Pram/Broadcast axis) and post-punk era. There seems to be a profound suspicion of artiness in indie circles these days, hence the proliferation of utter-wank like Brother and (yes) Kayas.

Of course, the real music creativity of the last 15 years in this country has come within dance and bass music. I think this is what creatively-minded musicians turn to these days.

Actually, I'm not sure I have a problem with this set up; I get my experimental indie from the US, my dubstep and grime from the UK. Perfect.